Charlie Winstanley (Blackburn, Blackburn College): In the aftermath of this year's National Union of Students conference, a series of unexpected victories have placed the left and independent student groups in a position of daunting agency over the future of the Union. The sinister Governance Review (the central project of the Labour students 'vision' for NUS over the past two years) has been rejected; and despite hard talk about returning with the Review again at next year's conference, the Leadership of the National Executive know that another blatant attempt to force through undemocratic legislation so openly could further undermine their now damaged control over the Union. On the back of the left's victory over the Review, other surprise successes (on motions opposed to military intervention in Darfur and in favour of occupations and civil protest in event of a military strike on Iran) lead the Student Respect group to gain the 1st and 3rd highest votes for the Block of 12 elections, firmly establishing a left base within the NEC. Mumblings and murmurs about creating a united left movement from the 'Save NUS Democracy' campaign were prevalent in the post-Review caucus, for the first time offering the realistic prospect of building a united, alternative vision of student politics to that of the dominant political groups.
But taking that into account, the overall hegemony of Student Labour and their 'independent' allies is still unquestionable. Despite Student Respect's successes in the Block elections, other groups opposed to the Review fared less well (both 'Education Not for Sale' and 'Student Broad Left' lost existing Block seats). And, though losing the Review was a massive defeat, there is no reason to doubt that Labour students will make good on their plans to bring back "reform" to next year's conference agenda (whether in the form of the Review or not). The NEC leadership successfully passed a motion supporting the eventual incorporation of NUS as a charity this year (removing its political independence) and will most certainly wage more attacks upon NUS's core structure in coming months.
The battle for NUS has just begun, and those on the sidelines can expect to see more skirmishes for control over the next few years. But for the results of this conflict not to already be a foregone conclusion, groups acting independently of the New Labour cabal need to capitalise on the unity achieved in opposition to the Review and maintain the organisation and communication links forged through their latest fight. NUS democracy has been saved, for now, but under the current leadership of the Union it won't be safe for long.
Comments
Oh dear. For those of you who didn't have the pleasure of seeing both Wes Streeting and Gemma Tumelty's tearfully enraged ripostes to the Left's victory over the review, let me tell you that Daryn's polemic against the 'hard left' (or, presumedly, those who are leftwing in any real sense of the word) in particular is highly reminiscent.
Firstly on the 'hollow nature' of our victory. I'd like to point out that with us being massively out-mobilised by Labour students, massively underfunded, massively outnumbered and not having the same resources to, for example, put on a special meeting right before conference where 'pro Review' pedagogy was hammered into new and bewildered delegates heads, no-one on the left was expecting to win the vote over the Review. Not by a long margin. Something to the same effect of the Review WILL be back at next year's conference, but not necessarily in the same form. A united left opposition can only be stronger next year than this - and NUS leadership know that. They may bring it back in it's pure form, but they know it's a risk.
The fact is that even with New Labour's stranglehold over the vast majority of SUs and their delegations, AND that way before the actual vote three pro-Review speeches were able to be made by NEC members and 'special guests' under the auspices of 'welcome to conference' talks, that we still won is frankly astounding. Everything was set up against us, and it's indicative of the absolutely DIRE quality of your debate on the Review (where not one single pro-Reviewer even tangentally commented upon the actual, direct contistutional imediments to democracy which were being cited by the Left) that you lost. Make no mistake; you lost the debate by a huge margin, having (as you did) absolutely nothing to back your 'arguments' up with.
Secondly on the Block votes - I'll correct you on a few factual points - though I'm not here to be a mouthpiece for Student Respect, I'll have to start there. Firstly, Hind Hassan was wearing Respect colours throughout the entirety of the Governance Review debate (where she spoke several times), and regardless, she was present amongst the green shirts on practically every contentious bill. You'd have had to be blind not to recognise her factional loyalties. Secondly, Rob Owen, though being the first choice, was elected by a wider margin than last year DESPITE the fact that first and second preference votes were split by Hassan's candidacy. By any measure, that's a massive increase in support for the group on conference floor.
On 'support for the Review', as I pointed out in response to Gemma Tumelty's criticism of my initial article [ http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2008/03/28/future-of-the-national-student-movement-is-at-stake/#comment-20471 ]:
"Though the pro-review camp have claimed the legitimacy of the support of most student Unions, little is to be claimed in the way of cross-campus discussion on the review. In most cases, the Review camp have settled instead for lobbying individual Presidents and convincing SU officials rather than introducing the debate to the wider University. On occasion when such debate has been had (such as in Leeds) a clear majority voted against. Even up until the point of conference, the lack of general discussion over the issue was clear as for most delegates, the first they heard of the Review was as they came through the door."
Your claim to the support (and even KNOWLEDGE) of the Review from 'millions' of students is beyond laughably absurd. The NEC's secretive manouvring around the drafting of the Review and their ludicrously informal consultation meetings (where again, minutes are few and far between and an actual account of how the discussion was drafted into the making of the Review non-existant) ensured that only a tiny minority of students (mainly those centred around Labour held SUs, funnily enough) ever knew anything about it.
And as for New Labour's disgusting record with NUS over the past 15 years, I think that Daryn's last paragraph can show itself up as being insidiously deceitful. As the products of their governance, we now have what is most likely the most politically impotent Union in the democratic world, the most right-wing student's Union (with a worse position on top-up fees than Amicus [pre 'Unite']) entirely inactive and unable even to call a proper demonstration against tuition fees. Whilst students in France and Greece have been challenging governments and winning in the face of riot police and tear-gas, in Britain most students think NUS is a chain of pubs. And why wouldn't they? Labour's control over NUS has systematically avoided any confrontational policies with the government and has CERTAINLY not supported any move to actually involve students in the campaigning they love so much to do on our behalf. Thousands of pounds every year spent on wining and dining the powerful, rather than fulfilling the function of any Trade Union in empowering its membership from the grass-roots up. Now President-Elect Wes Streeting claimed support for riotous occupations when on a platform in front of real student membership at the unconstitutionally watered-down 'Keep the cap' demonstration 2 years ago (where the placards were printed as 'keep the cap' rather than 'down with fees' as agreed at the conference where Labour suffered a surprise defeat in trying to quash the demonstration altogether) only to fly into a paddy about how such demonstrations are unaffordable and untenable at the very next year's conference. This is the manner in which New Labour runs our Union. Brazen dishonesty, barely concealed careerism, a pathological devotion to democratically suicidal 'realism' (ie let's just back down on everything) and a complete contempt for anyone who attempts to stand in their way of turning NUS into a corporate/charity based pub-chain.
The history of Education over the past 15 years has been one of defeat for students and the student movement, and one which Labour students have presided over in our NUS. That's not something you can easily paper over with your rhetorical Blairite blatherings about 'progress'.
The battle is over. Check the elections for the six full-time officials and the overwhelming support for governance. The hard left managed to get just over a third - there cannot have been a single crusty left in studentville on 1 April – to defeat the archaic NUS rules, not the argument. They did not win that argument and they did not win anything else at conference after that one vote. Perhaps first time delegates duped by lefty propaganda on day one saw through the nonsensical rhetoric from thereon in!
Keep on fighting though - infighting is always more fun than delivering for students.
This is the most hilarious report on NUS conference yet, and shows how far the hard left have slid into the dream world they seem intent to occupy!
Hind Hassan topped the blocked precisely because she did not assciate herself with student respect, evidenced by the fact she didn't wear a respect t-shirt at any stage of the conference and that Rob Owen who was Respects's first choice candidate came third, having already spent a year on the block, beaten by over 20 votes (Which is a lot in a NUS Block election) by someone who heavily supported the governance review. In fact of the 12 positions on the block of twelve only 2 now oppose the governance review, thats reduced from 3 or 4.
A united hard left slate might be emerging - but in doing so it has reduced the numbers of hard left people on the NEC.
With regard to the Governance Review - it will be back because well over 65.5% of delegates voted for it (it needed 66.66% to become a constitutional amendment, although it is still 'policy of NUS). Hundreds of unions and millions of students have backed it, and once again the Hard Left only won by manipulating the archane structures of NUS shutting out real students. Why? well god only knows but I suspect its because they fear real students because they know that the Hard Left wouldn't last five minutes if they had to engage with them. I thought it was funny that those independant groups bewildered by the intimidating conference environment desserted you after the governance vote once they realised how ridiculous your version of NUS would be. Your anti governance motions were defeated resoundingly, and so NUS still has a mandate from last years conference to deliver change!
Saying that the Hard Left failed to win a single policy vote on conference floor without the backing of the Organised Independant's or Labour Students! Why? Because the Hard Left in NUS are irrelevant, and have a bankrupt vision for both NUS and our education!
The Hard Left might sound good, and pose for good photo opportunities, but when it comes to the hard work of organising our students on campus they fail every single time!
The real left groups in NUS, the Bubbles, OI's, and Labour Students are the only groups prepared to engage with real students, and it is they who organise at every single opportunity to defend our education - under their leadership this year I know NUS will be in safe hands in the run up to the 09 review!
Sorry Charlie, but I can't help feel you've got it wrong there:
Firstly, there was a pre-conference anti-reform meeting, I know there was because I was invited to it.
Next, you make repeated mistakes of equating those supporting the governance review with being Labour students. Most of them weren't. In my delegation, of those of us supporting the review (about 8/15), only one was a Labour student, and he was the only one who stood in our elections as well.
I can assure you that 'New Labour' does not have a stranglehold over my student union. Indeed, most of the sabs actually work for their students, not their political parties.
But...you had no alternative when arguing against the review. The number of times we hear calls for a 'fighting, democratic union'...what does that mean, really?
Yes, Hind and Rob Owen got on the Block of 12...and thats about it. For ENS, no Student Broad Left, no Socialist Students and no Communist Students. Whatever position they came in, the hard-left lost the elections at conference badly.
Ah, the students in France and Greece, the far-left just can't get enough of them can they? If we'd voted for your education policy, we'd be paying for you all to hear them speak in sparsely populated lecture theatres. What a disgrace that you want our affiliation fees to go towards that.
Do you really think that if most students had a clearer idea about what went on in the NUS, they would support your version of it? One dominated by political factions, which 98% students are not members of, involving itself in issues which don't directly effect students, obsessed by direct action and shouting rather than talking?
On the NUS being a charity...I'm pretty sure that's the law, it needs to be. Maybe we should occupy part of the Home Office or something until they change it.
The case for reform will be back. The consultation will be better- I'm not saying the governance review was perfect- but the NUS can't wait any longer to change, to be more effective, more representative and winning for students. If there is a united left front at the next conference...well that would be a site to see, shortly followed by calls for disaffiliation. The Union I belong to pays the NUS £46,000 a year, and we pay it to win for students, not to hark back forty years, fight unwinable or irrlevant fights and to be a talking shop for the far-left.
The pre-conference anti-reform meeting was held in the hallway amidst the bustle of conference goings on as we weren't able to get ahold of any proper venues. Not only this, but NEC hacks wouldn't allow our speakers to use the megaphone (which has been traditionally used for hallway meetings since the past whenever) on the basis of "health and safety";- thus, at the meagre meeting we were able to hold our speakers voices were drowned out by the din of delegates arriving and finding out what was going on and, to be honest, it was hopeless if you were standing more than 5 ft away.
The Labour student delegation was not large enough in itself to pull the vote of 65.5% of the delegates on conference floor, it's true - but what cannot be denied is that Labour (and their said 'cabal') are the most heavily established and entrenched organised group in NUS (be that in regional SUs, acting Union positions, whatever). Unions which aren't Labour dominated are more often than not controlled by 'Organised Independants' courted by the NUS aristocracy. Labour are effectively the only organisation with the funds and connections within the Union to effectively campaign nationally on issues such as the Review. As such, the majority of Unions not dominated by Labour had only heard positive propaganda (if anything) about the Review before they entered conference. It would be politically misleading for me to refer to the real proponents of the Review as anything other than Labour students in the practical reality of realpolitik.
I'll repeat again; no-one on the left expected to win the vote on the Governance Review, by a long margin. The fact that we did is testament to the fantastic arguments we evidently won on conference floor. The structure of conference is such that the NEC find it easy to dismiss, discredit and slander the left as being immature idealists. The amount of conference time given to NEC members on supposedly non-political issues, control over the ordering of the motions, control over 'acceptable' guest speakers and all manner of different tools at the disposal of those already in commanding positions over the NUS structure mean that an inordinate amount of criticism can be indirectly levelled at groups on the left with no right of response.
As far as your disdainful attitude towards organising meetings with real student activists (that Labour/Labouresque leadership are happy to pay lip-service to when it suits) is concerned, surely anybody with the slightest sense of political reality can see that when in these countries students are actually winning fights against the government, at some point some kind of discussion on their tactics would be beneficial to our own movement. Whereas in Britain, NUS leadership have compromised (for example) on every subsequent demand levelled at the government over tuition fees year on year (and then they claim that all the talks had with these 'high-up' politicians whilst we have been being beaten are evidences of their successful policy) in France and Greece these movements have, in real terms, pushed the government back. Do you believe that British students are somehow incapable of standing up and defending their own interests? Do you believe there is something intrinsically embedded in the British student pysche which makes involvement in mass activity unworkable? Despite being incompetantly organised, the national demonstration on top-up fees was one of the most successful campaigning activities undertaken by the national union in years. National news coverage, massive press attention and pressure on SUs around the country to actually engage their membership in what the NUS actually is. The previous year the main talk on conference floor had been about disaffiliations and declining membership - the conference after welcomed around 3 new Universities to NUS nationally. No, we didn't come out of any meetings with empty promises on pieces of paper and government bills, but we showed students accross the country that the NUS needs THEM to function.
That's the way an effective Union works. Unfortunately it seems you've fallen for the lies that we need to simply write off active student involvement in campaigns (with your insanely condescending view of the political 'potential' of British students). Active involvement is what the student movement actually IS. If we can't fill lecture halls for speeches given by radical French students (though I doubt you've ever had the practical experience of organising a mass meeting to make that assumption) then we've lost anyway. The last 15 years has shown that entryist policies bring us nothing but successive political defeats. Why on Earth are you so wedded to tactics which have been systematically undermining the position of student politics for so long!?
There seems to be such bitterness here over the power of Labour students in NUS. it is a members organisation, which funds itself. If it has more resources than other NUS groups, then it is because it can attract members from all over campuses which believe in democratic socialism. It is indicative of the nature and demeanour of other factions that their membership is so small.
Aside, it is ridiculous to describe bickering in the NUS as a left-right debate as the factions largely agree on everything apart from the middle east (some such otherwise irrelevant matter) equally, politics in general, especially the in fighting and schoolboy rhetoric of NUS does not start and end with the seating arrangement of the french parliament.
Post new comment